This page exists in part to address allegations published by the Board majority in its May 5, 2026 letter to the membership, including the statement:
"Expenses incurred in connection with a request to rebuild a retaining wall behind a member's residence, when the Declaration had a provision that allowed for a simple solution." - Majority Board, May 5, 2026
The wall issue has also been repeatedly referenced in homeowner discussions, open forum comments, emails, and the anonymous letter distributed within the community. Over time, it became one of the most frequently cited examples used to portray Victoria LaBruzzo as acting from personal animosity, retaliation, selective enforcement, or a personal vendetta toward fellow homeowners.
The purpose of this page is not to attack any homeowner or determine which legal interpretation is ultimately correct. Rather, it is to provide the timeline, governance history, and documented decisions surrounding the wall matter so homeowners can evaluate those allegations in the context of the actual events and records.
For context, Board President Dave Settles was the only Director who served on both Executive Committees involved in the matter to their conclusions and therefore participated in the Association's consideration of the issue before and after the change in Board composition and legal representation.
Homeowners are encouraged to review the timeline (Wall & Governance), facts, and documented decisions for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
The Original Wall Failure
In 2021, a portion of a rear wall bordering Association common area began to fail.
At the time, one of the homeowners involved was serving as a member of the Board of Directors.
The homeowner/board member reported that both an insurance inspector and arborist had concluded that queen palm roots caused the failure.
An Architectural Application was submitted describing the project as a wall repair.
The application did not disclose any relocation of the wall, provide a survey, or indicate that the wall was being rebuilt - only repaired.
The Homeowner resigned from the board during the application process for their wall.
The application was approved by two AC members and the wall was rebuilt.
At the time, no dispute existed regarding the location of the reconstructed wall.
In 2024, a homeowner living along the ridge repeatedly requested that the Board inspect the entire wall located along the canyon ridge.
Meeting Minutes: April 16, 2024, May 22, 2024
During those inspections, Board members observed that the reconstructed portion of the wall appeared different from adjacent sections and did not appear to align with the original wall.
Because the original application contained very little information, the management requested additional documentation from the homeowners.
The homeowners declined to provide photographs, explaining that such documentation was not required under the Architectural Guidelines in effect at the time.
Without sufficient documentation to determine how the wall was rebuilt and given it was a homeowner/Association shared wall, the Board approved hiring a professional surveyor.
This was not a decision made by a single director.
It was a Board action (including two current board members) approved through the normal governance process.
The survey concluded that multiple portions of the reconstructed wall extended into Association common area.
The survey further showed that the original wall terminated at a different location than the newly constructed wall.
Whether the encroachment was intentional or accidental was never the primary issue before the Board.
The question was whether an encroachment existed and, if so, what the Association was required to do about it.
Once the survey confirmed the encroachment, the Board had a fiduciary obligation to evaluate the issue and obtain legal guidance.
Following review of the survey findings and related information, the Board, with guidance from experts, adopted a formal resolution addressing the encroachment issue.
The resolution established a framework for pursuing corrective action.
The Board did not attempt to determine whether the encroachment was intentional, accidental, or the result of misunderstanding. Once the encroachment was identified, the Board's focus was on determining what corrective action, if any, was required to satisfy its fiduciary responsibilities to the Association.
The resolution provided documentation-based solution designed to formally address the encroachment. Similar documentation-based approaches had been considered by the Association in connection with other wall-related encroachment matters in 2021. As a result, the corrective concepts reflected in the resolution were not unique to this single homeowner or a single dispute.
The documentation-based approach allowed the wall to remain in its existing location while addressing the encroachment through recorded documentation.
It was also the least disruptive and least costly option available to the homeowners.
That option was not accepted by the homeowners, leaving a reconstruction option as the primary corrective measure.
Following adoption of the resolution, management began obtaining proposals and related information associated with the approved course of action. At that point, the matter appeared to be moving toward resolution.
See: Wall & Governance Timeline
A Different Outcome, A Different Board
The resolution adopted in 2025 reflected the Board's position at that time based upon the survey findings, legal guidance, and governing document interpretations available to the Board.
The approach was not unique to this wall dispute. Similar documentation-based solutions had previously been considered by the Association when addressing other encroachment matters involving Association property interests. (2020-2021 Homeowner K on Wall Timeline)
Following changes in Board composition and legal counsel, the Association adopted a different interpretation and ultimately abandoned the previously approved resolution.
The significance is not whether one interpretation was ultimately more correct than the other. Rather, the Association completed its investigation, adopted a formal resolution, and later changed course after significant changes in leadership and legal representation.
Reasonable people may disagree regarding which outcome was appropriate. The timeline and supporting documents are provided so homeowners may evaluate the sequence of events for themselves.
One factor homeowners may wish to consider is that the issue ultimately involved differing interpretations of the Association's governing documents and applicable law. The Board that adopted the original resolution concluded that additional documentation and approval measures were necessary before an encroachment into Common Area could remain in place. Following the change in Board composition and legal representation, the new majority board adopted a different position and resolved the matter under a different interpretation - one that was not provided by legal as an option to the original board.
It is also important to understand that the objective of the original Board was not to impose the most burdensome or expensive outcome on the homeowners. From the boards' perspective, the goal was to identify the least costly and least disruptive means of resolving an issue that had already been brought before the Board and confirmed through a professional survey.
Reasonable people may disagree regarding which resolution was correct.
The chronology is set forth above so homeowners may evaluate the sequence of events independently.
The Association's position changed only after:
The Board composition changed.
One of the affected homeowners became a board member.
Legal counsel was fired.
New legal counsel was hired.
Victoria LaBruzzo was removed from Treasurer position.
Victoria LaBruzzo was removed from ARC Chair position.
Victoria LaBruzzo was removed from participation in Executive Committee matters.
Those events are part of the documented record.
As the wall issue continued, accusations against Victoria LaBruzzo increased dramatically.
She was accused of:
These accusations overlook several important facts.
The wall inspections were requested by a homeowner (Homeowner D on Wall Timeline).
Homeowner P would not provide documentation.
The survey was approved by Board vote.
The survey was performed by an independent licensed professional.
The matter underwent review through multiple levels of Association governance.
The Executive Committee decision was not the decision of a single director.
If Victoria possessed the authority attributed to her by these critics, there would have been no need for surveys, hearings, legal opinions, committee review, management involvement, or Board votes.
The documented record shows otherwise.
2021 Wall Failure → 2021 Repair Approved → 2024 Inspection → Homeowner did not provide documents → Survey Ordered → Survey Finds Encroachment → 2025 Board Adopts Resolution → New Board Installed → Current Attorney Fired → New Attorney Hired → Director Removed from Leadership Roles and Oversight Obligations → 2026 Matter Repeatedly Tabled → Prior Resolution Abandoned
The wall issue eventually expanded beyond Board meetings and became one of the most discussed subjects in homeowner communications, including an anonymous letter distributed within the community.
The anonymous letter used the wall matter as a primary example to support allegations of retaliation, selective enforcement, personal animosity, and a personal vendetta against homeowners.
Several months later, the Board majority's May 5, 2026 letter similarly cited the wall matter as evidence of concerns regarding Victoria LaBruzzo's conduct.
Homeowners may therefore wish to compare the allegations, conclusions, and themes presented in both documents.
